<* 


cops 


N.C 


^*ncx 


0, 


irn^  %  n  %  ^^ 


. 


I     »n 


Tke,  Ci  v  i  I    W 


•  ". 


C&e  Liorarp 

Of  Vt)t 

CHnitier0ttp  of  H3ortfi  Carolina 


Collection  ot  jRortf)  Carolmiana 
<TO0  boolt  toao  presented 


W 


6? 


C^^no.1  -  Gl^\So 


a  ^ 


OFFICIAL  RHKO 


OF  THE 


History  Committee 


OF  the 


GRAND  CAMP,  C.  V, 


Department  of  Virginia. 


by 


HON.  GEO.  L.  CHRISTIAN,  Chairman. 


Read  at  Newport  News,  Va.,  October  28th,  1903,  and 

Published  by  Order  of  the  Grand 

Camp  of  Virginia. 


North  Carolina  and  Virginia  in  the 
Civil  War. 


History  Committee. — Geo.  It.  Christian,  Chairman;  R.  T.  Barton, 
Carter  R.  Bishop,  R.  A.  Brock,  Rev.  B.  D.  Tucker,  John  W.  Daniel, 
James  Mann,  R.  S.  B.  Smith,  T.  H.  Edwards,  W.  H.  Hurkamp,  John 
W.  Fulton,  Micajah  Woods. 

CONFEDERATE  VETERAN  (NASHVILLE)  FOR  APRIL,  1904. 


THE  following  report  was  submitted  to  the  Grand  Camp  of 
Confederate  Veterans  of  Virginia  at  its  annual  meeting, 
held  at  Newport  News,  Va.,  October  28th,  1903.  It  was  then 
unanimously  adopted,  and  five  thousand  copies  were  directed  by 
the  Camp  to  be  published  in  pamphlet  form.  A  few  days  after 
this  action  on  the  part  of  the  Camp,  the  author  saw  a  statement 
in  the  newspapers  to  the  effect  that  a  committee  had  been  ap- 
pointed by  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Society  to  investigate 
the  statements  contained  in  the  report.  The  author  was  most 
anxious  that  if  there  were  any  errors  in  the  report,  they  should 
be  corrected  before  it  was  put  in  a  more  permanent  form;  and 
it  was  with  this  view  that  the  publication  has  been  postponed 
until  this  time.  GEO.  L.  CHRISTIAN,  Chairman. 

Richmond,  February  20th,  1904. 


OFFICIAL   REPORT 

OF  THE 

History  Committee  of  the  Grand  Camp,  C.  V., 

DEPARTMENT    OF    VIRGINIA. 


October  28th,  1903. 


To  the  Grand  Camp  of  Confederate  Veterans  of  Virginia: 

Your  History  Committee  again  returns  its  thanks  to  you 
and  the  public  for  the  nattering  and  cordial  way  in  which 
you  have  received  its  last  report.  It  will  be  as  gratifying  to 
you  as  it  is  to  the  committee  to  know  that  we  have  heard 
of  no  attempt  to  controvert  any  statement  contained  in  any 
report  of  this  committee  up  to  this  time.  It  will  also  be 
gratifying  to  you  to  learn  that  at  the  late  reunion  of  the. 
United  Confederate  Veterans,  held  in  New  Orleans,  the 
several  reports  of  your  committee  were  not  only  incorpo- 
rated as  a  part  of  the  report  of  the  History  Committee  of 
that  great  organization,  but  received  its  unanimous  and  un- 
qualified indorsement. 

REGRETS   OF   COMMITTEE. 

We  had  expected  in  this  report  to  discuss  a  very  different 
subject  from  that  which  now  claims  our  attention.  Indeed, 
we  deeply  regret  that  the  matter  which  demands  our  atten- 
tion at  this  time  should  have  to  be  considered  by  us  at  all. 
But  we  conceive  it  to  be  our  first  duty  to  our  Mother  State 
to  see  that  her  record  in  the  Confederate  war  is  kept  true, 
and  not  misunderstood  or  misrepresented  by  either  friend  or 
foe.  We  have  always  deprecated  controversies  between 
Confederates.  We  think,  as  Gen.  Early  once  said,  there  is 
glory  enough  attached  to  the  Confederate  struggle  for  all 
of  us  to  have  a  share,  that  we  should  stand  together  and 
see  that  the  truth  of  that  conflict  is  preserved;  this  is  all  we 
have  a  right  to  ask,  and  we  should  be  content  with  nothing  else. 

This  being  our  position,  we  repeat  our  sincere  regret  that 
some  recent  publications  from  representatives  of  our  sister 
State  of  North  Carolina  have  come  to  us  in  such  a  way,  and 
that  these  publications  emanate  from  such  sources,  that  they 
demand  consideration  and  attention  at  the  hands  of  your  com- 
mittee. We  again  repeat  our  sorrow  that  we  feel  compelled 
to  notice  these  matters,  and  in  doing  so  we  shall  strive  to 
say  nothing  which  will  even  tend  to  detract  from  the  fame 


won  by  the  glorious  "Old  North  State"  in  the  Confederate 
war,  except  in  so  far  as  attempts  have  been  made  to  augment 
that  fame  at  the  expense  of  Virginia. 

PEOPLE  OF   NORTH    CAROLINA. 

We  know  the  people  of  North  Carolina  and  greatly  ad- 
mire their  many  virtues  and  noble  characteristics.  We  knew 
the  soldiers  sent  by  her  to  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia. 
We  have  seen  their  splendid  bearing  and  frightful  sacrifices 
on  many  a  field  of  carnage,  and  we  bear  willing  testimony 
to  the  fact  that  no  truer,  better,  or  braver  soldiers  ever 
stood  on  the  "bloody  front  of  battle."  North  Carolina  is 
truly  a  great  State,  inhabited  by  a  noble  people,  and  with  a 
record  of  which  she  has  a  right  to  be  proud.  We  love  State 
pride,  and  particularly  that  State  pride  and  devotion  to  prin- 
ciple which  has  made  North  Carolina  do  what  she  could  to 
preserve  the  names  and  records  of  her  soldiers  in  the  Con- 
federate armies.  Every  other  Southern  State  should  follow 
her  example,  no  matter  what  it  may  cost  to  do  so. 

No  truer  patriots  ever  lived  or  died  for  their  country 
than  those  who  fought  in  the  Confederate  armies.  These 
men  are  as  well  satisfied  now  as  they  ever  were  that  their 
cause  was  just.  They  enlisted  at  the  command  of  their  sev- 
eral States;  they  did  their  duty  to  the  best  of  their  ability; 
they  are,  and  have  a  right  to  be,  proud  of  their  achievements, 
and  they  have  a  right  to  expect  that  their  States  will  see  to 
it  that  their  names  and  the  record  of  their  deeds  are  pre- 
served. 

CLAIMS   MADE  BY  NORTH   CAROLINA. 

Conceding,  as  we  cheerfully  do,  the  great  fame  achieved  by 
North  Carolina  in  the  Confederate  war,  it  seems  to  us,  from 
reading  the  publications  to  which  we  have  referred,  that  some 
of  our  friends  from  that  State  have  not  been  either  just  or 
generous  in  some  of  their  allusions  to  her  sister  States,  and 
have  seemed  both  spiteful  and  boastful  in  some  of  their  charges, 
claims,  and  references  to  their  "next-door  neighbor,"  Virginia. 
What  Virginia  may  have  done  to  provoke  this,  we  are  not  ad- 
vised. If  aught,  we  regret  it.  It  is  these  charges,  these  claims 
and  seeming  reflections  on  Virginia  alone,  that  we  now  pro- 
pose to  consider,  as  we  feel  in  duty  bound  to  do.  In  doing 
this  we  shall  not  imitate  the  course  pursued  by  some  of  the 
writers  to  whom  we  have  referred.  Some  of  these  have  not 
hesitated  to  reflect  on  the  people  and  soldiers  from  Virginia 
in  the  harshest  and,  in  our  opinion,  most  unjust  manner.  We 
shall  not  imitate  these  writers  (i)  because  we  feel  confident 
they  do  not,  in  their  criticisms  of  Virginia  and  her  people,  re- 


fleet  the  real  feelings  of  North  Carolinians  toward  Virginians, 
and  (2)  because  neither  the  people  of  Virginia  nor  the  soldiers 
sent  by  her  to  the  Confederate  armies  need  any  defense  at 
our  hands.  The  presentation  of  the  truth  of  what  Virginia 
did  and  dared  and  suffered  for  the  Confederate  cause  is  her 
complete  vindication,  and  it  is  a  part  of  this  task  that  we  now 
filially  but  cheerfully  assume. 

THAT   SHE  FURNISHED   MORE  TROOPS. 

First:  The  first  and  most  serious  claim  made  by 
North  Carolina  is  that  she  furnished  more  troops  to 
the  Confederacy  than  any  other  Southern  State. 

This  claim  has  been  made  and  published  far  and  wide, 
and,  as  far  as  we  know,  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  con- 
trovert it.  It  generally  assumes  the  form  of  a  boast,  but 
is  sometimes  made  the  basis  of  a  complaint.  We  saw  not 
long  since  in  a  North  Carolina  paper  (the  Charlotte  Observer 
of  May  17,  1903)  a  statement  from  the  pen  of  a  distinguished 
writer  of  that  State,  in  which  he  complained  that  partiality 
had  been  shown  to  Virginia,  and  consequent  injustice  done 
to  North  Carolina,  during  the  war,  in  the  appointment  of  the 
general  officers  of  the  army,  especially,  he  said,  since  Virginia 
had  furnished  only  about  76,000  troops  to  the  Confederacy, 
to  North  Carolina's  126,000,  or  50,000  more  than  Virginia. 

PRESIDENT  DAVIS. 

So  far  as  the  question  of  partiality  is  concerned,  since 
President  Davis,  who  made  all  these  appointments,  was  not 
a  Virginian,  there  was  no  reason  why  he  should  have  been 
partial  to  Virginians  unless  their  merits  warranted  it.  And, 
in  our  opinion,  no  good  reason  is  given  by  this  writer  for 
any  such  alleged  misconduct  on  his  part.  We  believe  Mr. 
Davis  was  not  only  a  true  patriot  but  a  great  and  good  man, 
and  that  it  would  have  been  almost  impossible  to  have  found 
any  one  who  could  or  would  have  discharged  the  delicate 
and  difficult  duties  of  his  office  more  satisfactorily  to  all 
than  he  did. 

But  what  concerns  us  far  more  is  the  claim  made  by  this 
writer  that  North  Carolina,  with  a  smaller  white  population 
than  Virginia,  furnished  fifty  thousand  more  troops  to  the 
Confederacy.  This  claim  necessarily  implies  that  North 
Carolina  was  more  loyal  to  the  Confederate  cause  than  Vir- 
ginia, or,  in  other  words,  discharged  her  duty  in  this,  the 
greatest  crisis  in  the  history  of  these  States,  better  than 
Virginia. 


RECORD    OF    TROOPS    FURNISHED. 

Let  us  examine  the  record  on  this  point  first,  then,  and  see 
if  this  claim  is  sustained  by  it. 

In  Series  IV.,  Vol.  III.,  at  page  95,  of  what  are  termed 
"The  War  of  the  Rebellion  Official  Records,"  will  be  found 
a  carefully  prepared  official  report  to  the  "Bureau  of  Con- 
scription" of  the  Confederate  War  Department,  giving  in 
much  detail  the  number  and  character  of  the  troops  furnished 
by  the  States  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi  up  to  January  25,  186.1. 
This  report  shows  that  the  "total  number  of  men  sent  to  the 
field"  by  Virginia  up  to  that  time  was  (page  102*)  153,- 
876,  whilst  the  total  number  sent  by  North  Carolina  up  to 
that  time  was  only  88,457,  or  65,419  less  than  Virginia. 

This  report  further  shows  that  according  to  the  then 
last  census  there  were  remaining  in  Virginia,  between  the 
ages  of  eighteen  and  forty-five,  13,248  men  to  be  accounted 
for  as  soldiers;  and  in  North  Carolina  12,877.  So  that,  if 
every  man  of  those  unaccounted  for  in  North  Carolina  had 
been  subsequently  sent  to  the  field,  and  not  one  of  those 
from  Virginia,  still,  according  to  this  report,  Virginia  would 
have  furnished  fifty-two  thousand,  five  hundred  and  forty- 
three  more  than  North  Carolina. 

At  page  99  of  this  report,  in  referring  to  North  Carolina,  the 
following  statement  is  made: 

"The  Adjutant  General  of  the  State  has  estimated 
that  the  State  has  put  into  the  service  100,000  men, 
but  his  calculations  contain  an  apparent  error,  in 
which  he  has  accounted  for  14,000  men  twice.  His 
estimate  should  therefore  be  less  than  mine." 

We  do  not  quote  this  for  the  purpose  of  intimating  that 
North  Carolina  may  (unintentionally,  of  course)  still  be 
counting  "twice,"  in  making  up  the  number  she  now  claims, 
but  only  to  show  that  her  own  Adjutant  General  did  not 
then  claim  that  North  Carolina  had  furnished  more  than 
one  hundred  thousand  men,  whilst  Virginia  had  then  sent  to 
the  field,  as  shown  by  this  report,  one  hundred  and  fifty-three 
thousand,  eight  hundred  and  seventy-six,  and  rather  more  than 
double  the  number  with  which  she  is  credited  by  the  distin- 
guished writer  to  whom  we  have  just  referred. 

At  page  100  of  this  same  report,  in  accounting  for  the 
troops  furnished  by  South  Carolina,  occurs  this  item  and 
statement — viz. : 

"Without  passing  through  camps  13,953." 

"A  large  part  of  this  number  (13,953)  will  be  found 


to  have  volunteered  in  North  Carolina  regiments,  hav- 
ing been  drawn  into  that  State  by  the  inducements  of 
double  bounty,  which  was  at  one  time  offered  to  vol- 
unteers." 

These  troops  from  South  Carolina  are,  doubtless,  counted 
by  North  Carolina  in  the  number  she  now  claims,  and  may, 
to  some  extent,  account  for  how  she  furnished  10,000  more 
soldiers  to  the  Confederacy  than  her  voting  population,  as 
shown  in  a  then  recent  election,  of  which  fact  she  now  justly 
boasts. 

REPORT  CORRECT. 

As  showing  that  the  report  from  which  we  have  quoted 
is  substantially  correct,  the  largest  number  of  troops  we 
have  seen  anywhere  claimed  to  have  been  furnished  by 
North  Carolina  is  that  contained  in  the  report  from  the  pres- 
ent Adjutant  General's  office,  and  this  number  is  put  at 
about  127,000,  and,  of  course,  this  includes  the  "total  of  all 
men  disposed  of"  from  the  State — all  in  the  field,  and  all  ex- 
emptions from  whatever  cause.  The  report  from  which  we 
have  quoted  above  (page  103)  gives  North  Carolina  126,623 
and  to  Virginia  (counting  in  the  same  way)  178,933,  or  52,- 
316  more  than  North  Carolina. 

COMPARATIVE    NUMBER    OF    REGIMENTS,    ETC. 

Whilst  this  report  gives  the  number  of  regiments,  bat- 
talions, and  batteries  furnished  by  Virginia,  it  does  not  give 
the  number  of  those  furnished  by  North  Carolina.  But  we 
are  enabled  to  supply  this  apparent  omission  from  another 
source,  to  be  found  in  the  same  volume  at  page  722.  As  late 
as  October  11,  1864,  Gov.  Vance  wrote  to  Gen.  Bragg  (a 
native  of  North  Carolina),  then  stationed  in  Richmond,  ask- 
ing Bragg  to  furnish  him  with  the  number  of  troops  fur- 
nished by  North  Carolina  to  the  Confederacy,  and  saying  he 
wished  this  information  in  order  to  "know  what  North  Car- 
olina had  done  in  comparison  with  the  other  States,"  in  view 
of  a  proposed  meeting  of  the  Governors  of  the  South,  then 
about  to  assemble  at  Augusta,  Ga.  On  this  letter  of  inquiry 
there  is  an  indorsement  stating  that,  whilst  the  number  of 
troops  furnished  by  North  Carolina  could  not  be  given 
without  laborious  research,  there  was  then  in  the  Confed- 
erate service  from  that  State  sixty-seven  regiments,  five  bat- 
talions, twelve  unattached  companies,  two  State  regiments 
doing  service  for  the  Confederacy,  and  nine  battalions  of 
reserves  then  organized.  The  report  of  January  25,  1864, 
above  referred  to,  shows  that  Virginia  had  then  sent  to  the 


field  sixty-three  regiments  of  infantry,  forty  battalions  of 
infantry,  twenty  regiments  of  cavalry,  forty  battalions  of 
cavalry,  and  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  batteries  of  ar- 
tillery (page  96). 

A  comparison  of  these  organizations  of  the  two  States 
gives  this  result — viz.:  That  where  North  Carolina  had  fur- 
nished the  Confederacy,  in  all  arms  of  the  service,  sixty-nine 
regiments,  Virginia  had  furnished  eighty-three;  where  North 
Carolina  had  furnished  fourteen  battalions,  Virginia  had  fur- 
nished eighty;  and  where  North  Carolina  had  furnished 
twelve  unattached  companies  (presumably  batteries),  Vir- 
ginia had  furnished  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  batteries ; 
and  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  report  showing  the 
number  of  these  Virginia  organizations  is  dated  eight  months 
in  advance  of  that  showing  the  number  of  the  North  Caro- 
lina organizations. 

COMPARATIVE   EXEMPTIONS. 

Second:  Another  charge  made  by  another  distin- 
guished North  Carolina  writer  (Capt.  W.  R.  Bond  in 
his  pamphlet  entitled  "Pickett  or  Pettigrew")  is  that 
"citizens  of  Virginia  were  filling  nearly  one-half  of  the 
positions  of  honor  and  trust,  civil  and  military"  in  the 
Confederacy. 

So  far  as  the  appointment  of  the  general  officers  of  the 
army  is  involved  in  this  charge,  we  have  already  said  that 
we  believed  they  were  made  by  Mr.  Davis  solely  on  the 
merits  of  the  appointees;  and  we  think  it  will  be  admitted 
by  all  that  some  of  these  appointments  could  not  have  been 
improved  upon,  or  perhaps  made  at  all  from  any  other  State. 

As  to  the  charge,  so  far  as  it  applies  to  the  other  military 
officers,  this  was  made  by  Gov.  Vance  during  the  war,  and 
if  any  one  wishes  to  see  a  complete  refutation  of  it,  they 
have  only  to  refer  to  the  letter  from  Gen.  Lee  to  the  Con- 
federate Secretary  of  War,  dated  September  9,  1863,  Reb. 
Rec,   Series  I.,  Vol.   XXIX.,  Part  II.,  p.  723. 

As  to  the  civil  positions  of  honor  and  trust  of  which  this 
writer  says  one-half  were  filled  by  Virginians,  and  that  Rich- 
mond thought  "all  should  be  thus  filled."  If  he  means  by 
this  to  charge  that  Virginia  had  a  larger  number  of  men 
exempted  from  military  duty  to  fill  these  places  than  any 
other  State  (as  would  have  been  reasonable,  since  she  had 
the  largest  number  in  the  field  and  was  the  seat  of  the  capi- 
tol,  with  all  the  departments  of  the  government),  then  the 
report,  from  which  we  have  just  quoted,  shows  that  in  this 
he  is  greatly  mistaken.  This  report,  at  page  103,  shows  that 
the  "total  exempts"  in  Virginia  at  that  time  were  twenty-five 


thousand  and  sixty-three;  whilst  those  in  North  Carolina  num- 
bered thirty-eight  thousand,  one  hundred  and  sixty-six.  And  in 
the  same  volume  in  which  this  report  is  to  be  found,  at  page 
851,  will  be  found  this  remarkable  exhibit,  under  the  heading 
"Number  of  State  Officers"  in  each  Southern  State  exempted 
on  certificates  of  their  Governors.  This  last  paper  shows 
that  while  the  number  of  these  officers  exempted  in  Vir- 
ginia was  one  thousand,  four  hundred  and  twenty-two,  the 
number  exempted  in  North  Carolina  was  fourteen  thousand, 
six  hundred  and  seventy-five,  more  than  ten  times  as  many  as 
in  any  other  Southern  State. 

EFFECTS    OF    FIGHTING   OF   THE    "BETHEL   REGIMENT." 

Third:  A  third  claim  made  by  another  distinguished 
North  Carolina  writer  is  that  one  of  the  effects  of  the 
fight  made  by  the  "Bethel  Regiment"  at  Bethel  was 
the  "possibly  holding  Virginia  in  the  Confederacy." 
(See  article  by  Maj.  Edward  J.  Hale,  "North  Carolina 
Regiments  '61  to  '65,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  123.) 

The  only  theory  on  which  we  can  account  for  this  uncalled- 
for  suggestion  is,  that  the  writer  wished  to  attribute  to  this 
regiment  the  greatest  possible  achievement  the  fecundity  of 
his  imagination  could  conceive  of,  and  hence  this  "un- 
kindest  cut  of  all"  at  our  old  mother.  Virginia  joined  the 
Confederacy  before  North  Carolina;  and  we  will  show  later 
on,  by  the  testimony  of  ail  the  representatives  of  all  the 
Southern  States,  that  no  State  in  the  Confederacy  showed 
more  devotion  to  the  cause,  and  that  none  was  ready  to  make  or 
made  greater  sacrifices  in  its  behalf. 

NO  DESIRE  TO  MAGNIFY  WORK  OF  VIRGINIA. 

We  have  no  intention  or  desire  to  magnify  either  the  serv- 
ices rendered  by  Virginia  to  the  Confederacy  or  the  suf- 
ferings and  sacrifices  of  her  people  for  the  Confederate  cause. 
Indeed,  from  what  we  know  of  these,  we  think  it  would  be 
difficult  to  do  this.  But  since  some  North  Carolina  writers 
have  laid  so  much  stress  on  the  part  performed  by  their 
State  in  these  directions  (a  claim  we  have  no  disposition  to 
contest),  it  seems  to  us  both  pertinent  and  proper  to  call 
attention  to  two  things  which  apply  to  Virginia,  but  do  not 
apply  to  North  Carolina  or  to  any  other  Southern  State. 
These  are: 

VIRGINIA   A   "BATTLEGROUND." 

I.  Virginia  was  a  "battleground"  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  the  war.     No  people  who  have  not  had  this  ex- 


8 

perience  can  form  any  conception  of  what  it  means,  and  this 
was  literally  true  of  Virginia  "from  her  mountains  to  her 
seashore."  Every  day  and  every  hour  for  four  long  years 
the  tramp  or  the  camp,  the  bivouac  or  the  battle  of  both 
armies  were  upon  Virginia's  soil.  Six  hundred  of  the  two 
thousand  battles  fought  were  fought  in  Virginia,  and  the 
fenceless  fields,  the  houseless  chimneys,  the  charred  ruins 
and  the  myriad  graves  left  all  over  Virginia  at  the  close  of 
the  war  marked  and  measured  the  extent  to  which  her  ma- 
terial resources  had  contributed  to  that  struggle,  and  the 
devotion  of  her  people  to  the  Confederate  cause.  These 
things  also  showed  in  the  utter  desolation  produced  by  the 
war,  and  in  the  difficulties  and  disadvantages  the  State  and 
her  people  have  labored  under  ever  since. 

VIRGINIA   DISMEMBERED. 

2.  Virginia  was  the  only  Southern  State  dismembered  by 
the  war.  One-third  of  her  territory  (the  richest  in  many 
respects)  and  one-third  of  her  people  were  actually  torn  from 
her  by  the  mailed  hand  of  war  not  only  without  her  consent 
but  contrary  to  an  express  provision  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. The  true  history  of  this  "political  rape,"  as  it  was 
termed  by  Gen.  Wise,  is  one  of  the  blackest  political  crimes  in 
the  annals  of  history. 

OTHER   CLAIMS    MADE   BY    NORTH    CAROLINA. 

Fourth:  The  fourth  claim  or  claims  (and  the  last  to 
which  we  can  refer)  preferred  by  North  Carolina  are 
set  forth  in  these  very  striking  terms — viz. :  That  she 
was 

"First  at  Bethel;  Farthest  to  the  Front  at  Gettysburg 
and  Chickamauga;  Last  at  Appomattox." 

This  legend  in  this  form  is  inscribed  on  the  cover  of  each  of 
the  five  volumes  published  by  the  State,  entitled  "North  Caro- 
lina Regiments,  1861-65,"  to  be  thus  perpetuated  throughout  all 
time. 

Of  course,  such  claims,  thus  asserted,  and  conveying  to 
the  world  what  these  necessarily  do,  should  be  above  and 
beyond  all  criticism  or  cavil.  Let  us  see  if  these  will  stand 
this  test.  Before  instituting  this  inquiry,  let  us  first  ask, 
respectfully,  why  these  claims  are  made  at  all.  The  learned  ed- 
itor of  the  volumes  to  which  we  have  just  referred  disclaims 
that  they  are  intended  as  a  boast.  But  we  again  respectfully 
ask:  Can  they  mean  anything  else  than  that  North  Carolina 
means  by  them  to  proclaim  the  fact  that  the  troops  furnished 


by  her  were  better,  and  therefore  did  better  at  the  important 
points  named,  than  those  from  any  other  State. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  too,  that  our  friends  are  getting  more 
aggressive  in  their  claiming  with  the  passing  of  time.  The 
first  form  assumed  by  this  legend,  and  inscribed  on  the  Con- 
federate monument  at  Raleigh,  was  only: 

"First  at  Bethel;  Last  at  Appomattox." 

We  next  hear  of  it  as  inscribed  on  her  memorial  room  in 
Richmond  as: 

"First  at  Bethel;  Farthest  to  the  Front  at  Gettysburg; 
Last  at  Appomattox." 

And  now  Chickamauga's  "bloody  front"  is  also  included. 
One  of  her  writers  has  already  claimed  that  "Chancellors- 
ville"  was  a  "North  Carolina  fight,"  and  that  Gettysburg 
ought  to  be  so  denominated,  too;  and  so  our  friends  go  on 
claiming  from  step  to  step  just  as  during  the  war. 

"From  rank  to  rank  their  volleyed  thunders  flew." 

As  before  stated,  we  have  no  intention  or  desire  to  detract 
one  iota  from  the  fame  of  North  Carolina,  except  where  at- 
tempts have  been  made  to  augment  that  fame  at  the  expense 
of  Virginia.  Keeping  this  purpose  steadily  before  us,  we 
now  propose  to  inquire  whether  or  not  some  of  the  claims 
set  up  by  North  Carolina  in  this  legend  do  injustice  to  Vir- 
ginia.   And  first  as  to  the  claim  that  she  was  "first  at  Bethel." 

"first  at  bethel." 

In  Volume  IV.  of  the  "Confederate  Military  History,"  at 
page  19,  will  be  found  a  carefully  prepared  account  of  the 
battle  at  Bethel,  written  by  D.  H.  Hill,  Jr.,  son  of  the  in- 
trepid soldier  of  that  name  who  commanded  the  First  North 
Carolina  in  that  fight,  and,  therefore,  one  with  every  natural 
incentive  to  say  all  that  could  be  said  truthfully,  both  on 
behalf  of  his  father  and  his  regiment.  He  says:  "About  nine 
o'clock  in  the  morning  of  the  10th  (June)  the  Federals  ap- 
peared on  the  field  in  front  of  the  Southern  works,  and  Gre- 
ble's  battery  took  position.  A  shot  from  a  Parrott  gun  in 
the  Confederate  works  ushered  in  the  great  Civil  War  on 
the  land." 

This  first  shot  was  fired  from  the  battery  of  the  Richmond 
(Va.)  Howitzers,  which  had  already  fired  the  "first  shot" 
fired  on  Virginia's  soil  nearly  a  month  before  at  Gloucester 
Point.     We  are   not   claiming,   however,   any   special   credit 


for  having  fired  this  conceded  first  shot,  the  firing  of  which 
was  only  fortuitous.  But  Virginia  was  at  Bethel,  along  with 
North  Carolina,  not  only  represented  by  the  commanding 
general,  himself  a  Virginian,  but  by  all  three  arms  of  the 
service  (infantry,  artillery,  and  cavalry),  and  these  troops 
are  mentioned  by  the  commanding  general,  along  with  those 
from  North  Carolina,  net  only  in  his  report  of  the  battle  but 
also,  and  in  complimentary  terms,  in  the  report  of  Gen. 
(then  Col.)  D.  H.  Hill,  commanding  the  only  North  Carolina 
troops  there.  Was  not  Virginia  at  Bethel,  then,  standing 
side  by  side  with  North  Carolina?  Did  she  not  do  her  duty 
there  as  well?  If  she  did,  why  'the  invidious  claim  that 
North  Carolina  was  first  at  Bethel?  Is  this  just  to  Virginia? 
We  think  not,  in  all  kindness  and  courtesy.  Bethel  is  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  to  claim  that  the  troops  of  any  other  State  were 
more  prompt  in  defending  her  soil  than  those  from  Virginia 
necessarily  reflects  on  Virginia. 

FARTHEST    AT   GETTYSBURG. 

As  to  Gettysburg:  We  were  there,  and  by  reason  of  our 
position  on  the  field,  we  saw  that  battle  as  we  never  saw 
any  other.  We  saw  the  charges  of  Pickett's,  Pettigrew's, 
and  Pender's  Divisions.  We  saw  some  of  Pickett's  men  go 
over  the  enemy's  works  and  into  their  lines.  We  did  not 
think  then,  and  do  not  think  now,  that  Pettigrew's  and  Pen- 
der's went  so  far,  and  we  know  this  was  the  consensus  of 
opinion  of  those  around  us  at  the  time. 

But  be  this  as  it  may,  the  world's  verdict  is  that  Pickett's 
men  went  as  far  as  men  could  go  and  did  all  that  men  could 
do.  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams  has  recently  written  of 
them,  that  the  vaunted  charge  of  Naooleon's  "Old  Guard" 
at  Waterloo  did  not  compare  with  that  of  Pickett's  men. 
and  was  "as  boys'  play  beside  it." 

Gen.  John  B.  Gordon,  of  Georgia,  perhaps  the  most  dis- 
tinguished Confederate  officer  now  living,  who  was  at  Get- 
tysburg, has  very  recently  written  that  the  "point  where 
Pickett's  Virginians,  under  Kemper,  Garnett,  and  Armistead, 
in  their  immortal  charge  swept  over  the  rock  wall,  has  been 
appropriately  designated  by  the  government  as  the  high-water 
mark  of  the  rebellion."  And  we  believe  this  will  be  the  ver- 
dict of  history  for  all  time. 

Since  there  has  been  so  much  discussion  on  this  point, 
and  some  of  it,  we  think,  both  unfortunate  and  intemperate, 
we  propose  to  consider  this  claim  calmly  and  dispassionately, 
not  from  what  we  saw,  or  what  we  and  others  may  have 
thought  at  the  time  of  the  battle,  or  may  think  now,  but  from 
the  official  reports  of  the  commanding  officers,  written  only  a 


II 

few  days  after  the  battle.  These  reports  are  the  best  evidence, 
and  must  and  will  be  accepted  as  conclusive  of  what  then  oc- 
curred. We  have  read  so  much  of  all  of  these  reports,  Con- 
federate and  Federal,  as  we  could  find  published  and  as  would 
throw  light  on  this  question,  and  we  propose  to  make  such 
extracts  from  the  most  important  of  these  as  we  think  should 
settle  this  controversy  for  all  time.  It  is  proper  to  say  in  this 
connection  that  the  statements  contained  in  these  reports  were 
accepted  as  true  at  the  time,  and  remained  so  for  thirty  years. 
History,  both  at  the  North  and  at  the  South,  has  been  based 
on  them,  and  it  seems  to  us  remarkable  that  this  controversy 
should  have  arisen  so  long  after  the  happening  of  the  events  as 
thus  established.  But  the  controversy  has  now  arisen,  and 
hence  the  necessity  for  appealing  to  the  record  to  settle  it. 
The  question  is,  Which  troops  went  "farthest  to  the  front" — 
i.  e.,  penetrated  the  enemy's  works  farthest — on  the  3d  day 
of  July,  1863.  at  Gettysburg  in  the  famous  charge  of  that  day — 
Pickett's,  Pettigrew's,  or  Pender's?  We  say  Pickett's;  North 
Carolinians  say  Pettigrew's. 

In  order  to  understand  the  situation  and  the  quotations 
we  shall  make  from  the  reports,  it  is  necessary  to  state  what 
forces  constituted  the  "charging  column"  and  the  dispositions 
and  alignments  of  these  forces.  This  column  was  composed 
of  Pickett's  Virginia  Division  on  the  right  and  a  part  of 
Heth's  Division  (commanded  by  Pettigrew)  on  the  left,  with 
a  part  of  Anderson's  Division  to  guard  the  left  flank  of  Petti- 
grew, and  Wilcox's  and  Perry's  Brigades  of  Anderson's  Divi- 
sion the  right  flank  of  Pickett.  Pickett's  Division  was  called 
the  "directing  division,"  and  was  composed  of  Kemper's,  Gar- 
nett's,  and  Armistead's  Brigades — Kemper's  on  the  right, 
Garnett's  on  the  left,  supported  by  Armistead  in  the  rear  and 
center.  Pettigrew's  Division  was  composed  of  Archer's,  Petti- 
grew's, Davis's,  and  Brockenbrough's  Brigades,  supported  by 
Scales's  and  Lane's  Brigades  of  Pender's  Division,  then  com- 
manded by  Gen.  Trimble;  Scaies's  Brigade  (commanded  by 
Col.  Lowrance)  being  in  rear  of  Archer's  (commanded  by 
Col.  Fry),  and  Lane's  being  on  the  left  of  Scales,  supporting 
Pettigrew's  Brigade  (then  commanded  by  Col.  Marshall). 
All  of  the  reports  refer  to  the  magnificent  way  in  which  all  of 
these  troops  advanced  to  the  charge,  and  we  shall  institute  no 
comparison  between  them ;  they  were  all  gallant  and  glorious 
Confederate  soldiers,  and,  we  believe,  the  "best  the  world  ever 
saw,"  as  they  have  been  pronounced  by  the  present  Chief  Mag- 
istrate of  this  country. 

We  come  now  to  the  reports.  We  quote  first  from  that  of 
Gen.  Lee,  written  after  he  had  received  those  of  his  subordi- 
nates, and  based  upon  what  was  contained  in  them,  as  well  as 


12 

what  he  saw  on  the  held;  and  his  position  on  the  field  was 
such  that  he  could  see  the  whole  movement  with  distinct- 
ness.    He  says  this  in  his  official  report: 

"Gen.  Longstreet  ordered  forward  the  column  of 
attack,  consisting  of  Pickett's  and  Heth's  Divisions  in 
two  lines,  Pickett  on  the  right.  Wilcox's  Brigade 
marched  in  rear  of  Pickett's  right  to  guard  that  flank, 
and  Heth's  (commanded  by  Pettigrew)  was  supported 
by  Lane's  and  Scales's  Brigades  under  Gen.  Trimble. 
The  troops  moved  steadily  on  under  a  heavy  fire  of 
musketry  and  artillery,  the  main  attack  being  directed 
against  the  enemy's  ieft  center.  His  batteries  opened 
as  soon  as  they  appeared.  Our  own,  having  nearly 
exhausted  their  ammunition  in  the  protracted  can- 
nonade that  preceded  the  advance  of  the  infantry, 
were  unable  to  reply  or  render  the  necessary  support 
to  the  attacking  party.  Owing  to  this  fact,  which 
was  unknown  to  me  when  the  assault  took  place,  the 
enemy  was  enabled  to  throw  a  strong  force  of  infantry 
against  our  left,  already  wavering  [italics  ours]  un- 
der a  concentrated  fire  of  artillery  from  the  ridge  in 
front  and  from  Cemetery  Hill  on  the  left.  It  (the 
left)  finally  gave  way,  and  the  right,  after  penetrating 
the  enemy's  lines,  entering  his  advanec  works,  and 
capturing  some  of  his  artillery,  was  attacked  simulta- 
neously in  front  and  on  both  flanks  and  driven  back 
with  heavy  loss." 

We  have  only  to  remember  that  Pettigrew's  Division  was 
on  the  left  and  Pickett's  on  the  right  to  understand  clearly 
what  Gen.  Lee  here  says. 

We  next  quote  from  Gen.  Longstreet's  report,  who  was 
standing  not  very  far  from  Lee  and  saw  the  whole  movement. 
He  says : 

"The  advance  was  made  in  very  handsome  style,  all 
the  troops  keeping  their  lines  accurately  and  taking 
the  fire  of  the  batteries  with  coolness  and  deliberation. 
About  halfway  between  our  position  and  that  of  the 
enemy  a  ravine  partially  sheltered  our  troops  from  the 
enemy's  fire,  where  a  short  halt  was  made  for  rest. 
The  advance  was  resumed  after  a  moment's  pause,  all 
still  in  good  order.  The  enemy's  batteries  soon  opened 
on  our  lines  with  canister,  and  the  left  seemed  to 
stagger  under  it,  but  the  advance  was  resumed  and 
with  the  same  degree  of  steadiness.  Pickett's  troops 
did  not  appear  to  be  checked  by  the  batteries,  and  only 


halted  to  deliver  a  fire  when  close  under  musket  range. 
Maj.  Gen.  Anderson's  Division  was  ordered  forward 
to  support  and  assist  the  wavering  columns  of  Pctti- 
grew  and  Trimble.  Pickett's  troops,  after  delivering 
fire,  advanced  to  the  charge,  and  entered  the  enemy's 
lines,  capturing  some  of  his  batteries  and  gaining  his 
works.  About  the  same  moment,  the  troops  that  had 
before  hesitated  broke  their  ranks  and  fell  back  in 
great  disorder  [italics  ours],  many  more  falling  under 
the  enemy's  fire  in  retiring  than  while  they  were  at- 
tacking. This  gave  the  enemy  time  to  throw  his  entire 
force  upon  Pickett  [italics  ours  J,  with  a  strong  pros- 
pect of  being  able  to  break  up  his  lines  or  destroy  him 
before  Anderson's  Division  could  reach  him,  which 
would  in  its  turn  have  greatly  exposed  Anderson.  He 
was,  therefore,  ordered  to  halt.  In  a  few  moments 
the  enemy,  marching  against  both  flanks  and  the  front 
of  Pickett's  Division,  overpowered  and  drove  it  back, 
capturing  about  half  of  those  of  it  who  were  not  killed 
or  wounded  " 

Surely  comment  here  is  unnecessary,  and  no  one  who  has 
read  Longstreet's  book  will  accuse  him  of  partiality  to  Vir- 
ginians. 

We  next  quote  from  the  report  of  that  gallant  soldier  and 
splendid  gentleman,  Gen.  James  H.  Lane,  who  was  at  first 
in  command  of  Pender's  Division,  but  having  been  relieved 
of  that  by  Gen.  Trimble,  then  commanded  his  own  North 
Carolina   Brigade.     He   says : 

"Gen.  Longstreet  ordered  me  to  form  in  the  rear  of 
the  right  of  Heth's  Division,  commanded  by  Gen.  Pet- 
tigrew.  Soon  after  I  had  executed  this  order,  putting 
Lowrance  (commanding  Scales's  Brigade)  on  the  right, 
I  was  relieved  of  the  command  of  the  division  by  Gen. 
Trimble,  who  acted  under  the  same  orders  that  I  re- 
ceived. Heth's  Division  was  much  larger  than  Low- 
rance's  Brigade  and  my  own,  which  were  its  only  sup- 
port, and  there  was  consequently  no  second  line  in 
rear  of  its  left.  Now  in  command  of  my  own  brigade, 
I  moved  forward  to  the  support  of  Pettigrew's  right, 
through  the  woods  in  which  our  batteries  were  plant- 
ed, and  through  an  open  field  about  a  mile  in  full 
view  of  the  enemy's  fortified  position  and  under  a 
murderous  artillery  and  infantry  fire.  As  soon  as 
Pettigreu''s  command  gave  back  [italics  ours]  Low- 
rance's  Brigade  and  my  own,  without  ever  having 
halted,  took  position  on  the  left  of  the  troops,  which 


M 

were  still  contesting  the  ground  with  the  enemy  [ital- 
ics ours].  My  command  never  moved  forward  more 
handsomely.  The  men  reserved  their  fire,  in  accord- 
ance with  orders, -until  within  good  range  of  the  en- 
emy, and  then  opened  with  telling  effect,  repeatedly 
driving  the  cannoneers  from  their  pieces,  completely 
silencing  the  guns  in  our  immediate  front,  and  break- 
ing the  line  of  infantry  which  was  formed  on  the  crest 
of  the  hill.  We  advanced  to  within  a  few  yards  of 
the  stone  wall  [italics  ours],  exposed  all  the  while  to 
a  raking  artillery  fire  from  the  right.  My  left  was 
here  very  much  exposed,  and  a  column  of  the  enemy's 
infantry  was  thrown  forward  from  that  direction, 
which  enfiladed  my  whole  line.  This  forced  me  to 
withdraw  my  brigade,  the  troops  on  my  right  having 
already  done  so." 

The  troops  directly  on  Lane's  right  were  those  of  Low- 
rance.  But  if  he  refers  to  Pickett's  too,  then  he  does  not 
pretend  that  his  own  men  entered  the  enemy's  works,  as 
Pickett's  did,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  is  the  real  point  at  issue. 
Scarcely  a  more  striking  illustration  of  the  frailty  of  human 
memory  or  the  unsatisfactory  nature  of  the  post-bellum 
statements  relied  on  entirely,  it  would  seem,  by  the  advo- 
cates of  North  Carolina's  claim,  can  be  found  than  by  con- 
trasting Gen.  Lane's  report  with  what  is  said  by  Capt.  Louis 
G.  Young  (now  of  Savannah,  Ga.,  a  gallant  and  gifted  Con- 
federate who  was  in  charge  as  an  aid  on  Gen.  Pettigrew's 
staff),  in  an  address  recently  delivered  by  him  on  Gettys- 
burg, a  copy  of  which  he  has  kindly  sent  us.  Capt.  Young 
says : 

''Gen.  Trimble  and  his  brigade  (division)  were  not, 
and  had  not  been,  in  supporting  distance.  They  also 
must  have  been  delayed,  as  was  Davis's  Brigade,  in 
the  woods  on  Seminary  Ridge.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
they  were  too  late  to  give  any  assistance  to  the  as- 
saulting column.  When  I  delivered  my  message  I 
knew  it  was  too  late,  and  I  recall  my  sad  reflection, 
'What  a  pity  that  these  brave  men  should  be  sacri- 
ficed !'  Already  had  the  remnant  of  Pickett's  and 
Heth's  Divisions  broken.  They  broke  simultaneously. 
They  had  together  struck  the  stone  fence,  driven  back 
the  enemy  posted  behind  it.  looked  down  on  the  mul- 
titude beyond,  and,  in  the  words  of  Gen.  McLaws, 
who  was  watching  the  attack,  'rebounded  like  an  In- 
dia rubber  ball.'  The  lodgment  effected  was  only 
for  an  instant.  Not  twenty  minutes  elapsed,  as 
claimed  by   some,  before  the   handful   of  braves   was 


15 

driven  back  by  overwhelming  numbers.  Then  Trim- 
ble's command  should  have  been  ordered  to  the  rear. 
It  continued  its  useless  advance  alone,  only  to  return 
before  it  had  gone  as  far  as  we  had." 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  statement  is  (unintentionally,  we 
know)  not  only  at  variance  with  the  report  of  Gen.  Lane, 
but  also  with  those  of  Gens.  Lee.  and  Longstreet,  both  of 
whom  confirm  Gen.  Lane  in  the  statement  that  Pettigrew's 
men  gave  way  before  those  of  Piekett  did. 

But  let  us  quote  again  from  the  official  reports,  and  this 
time  from  that  of  Col.  Lowrance,  who,  it  will  be  remembered, 
commanded  Scale's  North  Carolina  Brigade,  which  was  sup- 
porting Pettigrew.     He  says : 

''We  advanced  upon  the  enemy's  line,  which  was  in 
full  view  at  a  distance  of  a  mile.  Now  their  whole 
line  of  artillery  was  playing  upon  us,  which  was  on 
an  eminence  in  front  strongly  fortified  and  supported 
by  infantry."  .  .  .  "All  went  forward  with  a  cool 
and  steady  step ;  but  ere  we  had  advanced  over  two- 
thirds  of  the  way  troops  from  the  front  came  tearing 
through  our  ranks  [italics  ours],  which  caused  many 
of  our  men  to  break,  but  with  the  remaining  few  we 
went  forward  until  the  right  of  the  brigade  touched 
the  enemy's  line  of  breastworks  as  we  marched  in 
rather  an  oblique  line.  Now  the  pieces  in  our  front 
were  silenced.  Here  many  were  shot  down,  being 
then  exposed  to  a  heavy  fire  of  grape  and  musketry 
upon  our  right  flank.  Now  all,  apparently,  had  for- 
saken us." 

Now  the  troops  in  front  of  Lowrance  were  those  of  Petti- 
grew, and  he  says  they  gave  way  a  third  of  a  mile  before 
they  got  to  the  enemy's  works.  But  be  this  at  it  may,  he 
nowhere  says  that  any  of  his  men  entered  the  enemy's  works-; 
and  none  of  the  reports  that  we  have  seen  say  that  any 
North  Carolina  troops  did  this,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
the  real  point  at  issue.  We  have  already  shown,  and  will 
do  so  more  conclusively  later,  that  Pickett's  men,  or  some 
of  them,  certainly  did  this.  The  report  of  Maj.  Joseph  A. 
Englehard,  assistant  adjutant  general  of  Pender's  Division, 
then  commanded  by  Trimble,  is  substantially  to  the  same 
effect  as  those  of  Gen.  Lane  and  Col.  Lowrance,  and  for  that 
reason  we  do  not  quote  what  he  says.  That  of  Col.  Shepard, 
of  Arcrrer's  -  Brigade,  after  describing  the*  charge,  and  saying 
■our  lines,  both  right  and  left,  gave  way,  says : 


i6 

"Archer's  Brigade  remained  at  the  works  fighting, 
as  long  as  any  other  troops,  either  on  their  right  or 
left,  so  far  as  I  could  observe.  Every  flag  in  the 
brigade,  excepting  one,  was  captured  at  or  within  the 
works  of  the  enemy:"     (Italics  ours.) 

This  is  the  only  official  statement  we  have  found  which 
claimed  that  any  other  troops  than  those  of  Pickett  entered  the 
enemy's  works.  But  since  Archer's  Brigade,  which,  Gen.  Heth 
says,  were  the  "heroes  of  Chancellorsville,"  was  composed 
entirely  of  Tennesseeans  and  Alabamians,  we  hardly  think 
our  North  Carolina  friends  can  mean  their  claim  to  be  mis- 
taken for  what  the  men  of  this  brigade  did. 

The  report  of  Maj.  J.  Jones,  of  the  Twenty-Sixth  North 
Carolina,  who  commanded  Pettigrew's  Brigade  after  Col. 
Marshall  was  wounded,  says  : 

"When  within  about  250  or  300  yards  of  the  stone 
wall,  behind  which  the  enemy  was  posted,  we  were 
met  with  a  perfect  hailstorm  of  lead  from  their  small 
arms.  The  brigade  dashed  on,  and  many  had  reached 
the  zvall,  when  we  received  a  deadly  volley  from  the 
left.  The  whole  line  on  the  left  had  given  way,  and 
we  were  being  rapidly  flanked.  With  our  thinned 
ranks  and  in  such  a  position  it  would  have  been  folly 
to  stand,  and  against  such  odds.  We,  therefore,  fell 
back  to  our  original  position  in  rear  of  the  batteries." 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  officer  does  not  claim  that  any  of 
his  men  entered  the  works  or  that  the  troops  on  his  right 
(Pickett's  and  Archer's)  gave  way  first;  but  those  on  his  left, 
the  other  two  brigades  of  Pettigrew's  Division.  The  reports 
of  Gens.  A.  P.  Hill,  Heth,  and  Davis  throw  no  light  on  the 
question,  and  we  have  been  unable  to  find  any  from  Gen. 
Pickett  or  from  any  officer  of  his  division,  except  that  of 
Maj.  Charles  S.  Peyton,  of  Garnett's  Brigade,  which  would 
throw  any  further  light  on  this  question.  Maj.  Peyton  says 
this: 

"Our  line,  much  shattered,  still  kept  up  tli£, advance 
until  within  about  twenty  paces  of  the  wall,  when  for 
a  moment  it  recoiled  under  the  terrific  fire  that  poured 
into  our  ranks  both  from  their  batteries  and  from  their 
sheltered  infantry.  At  this  moment  Gen.  Kemper 
came  up  on  the  right  and  Gen.  Armistead  in  rear, 
when  the  three  lines,  joining  in  concert,  rushed  for- 
ward with  unyielding  determination  and  an  apparent 
spirit  of  laudable  rivalry  to  plant  the  Southern  banner 
on   the   walls   of  the   enemy.     His   strongest   and   last 


17 

line  was  instantly  gained ;  the  Confederate  battle  flag 
waved  over  his  defenses,  and  the  fighting  over  the 
wall  became  hand-to-hand  and  of  the  most  desperate 
character ;  but,  more  than  half  having  already  fallen, 
our  line  was  found  too  weak  to  rout  the  enemy.  We 
hoped  for  a  support  on  the  left  (which  had  started 
simultaneously  with  ourselves),  but  hoped  in  vain. 
[Italics  ours.]  Yet  a  small  remnant  remained  in  des- 
perate struggle,  receiving  a  fire  in  front,  on  the  right, 
and  on  the  left,  many  even  climbing  over  the  wall 
and  fighting  the  enemy  in  his  own  trenches  until  en- 
tirely surrounded ;  and  those  who  were  not  killed  or 
wounded  were  captured,  with  the  exception  of  about 
300  who  came  off  slowly,  but  greatly  scattered,  the 
identity  of  every  regiment  being  entirely  lost  and 
every  regimental  commander  killed  or  wounded." 

Col.   Walter  H.  Taylor,  of  Gen.  Lee's  staff,  who  was  on 
the  field  standing  by  Gen.  Lee  and  saw  the  movement,  says. 

"It  is  needless  to  say  a  word  here  of  the  heroic 
conduct  of  Pickett's  Division.  That  charge  has  al- 
ready  passed  into  history  as  'one  of  the  world's  great 
deeds  of  arms.'  While  doubtless  many  brave  men  of 
other  commands  reached  the  crest  of  the  heights,  this 
was  the  only  organized  body  which  entered  the  works 
of  the  enemy." 

Gen.  Long,  who  was  also  on  Gen.  Lee's  staff,  after  describ- 
ing the  order  in  which  the  charge  was  made,  says : 

''But  the  tempest  of  fire  which  burst  upon  the  de- 
voted column  quickly  reduced  its  strength.  The  troops 
of  Heth's  Division  (Pettigrew's),  decimated  by  the 
storm  of  deadly  hail  which  tore  through  their  ranks, 
faltered  and  fell  back  in  disorder  before  the  withering 
volleys  of  the  Federal  musketry.  This  compelled 
Pender's  (Trimble's)  Division,  which  had  marched 
out  to  support  the  movement,  to  fall  back,  while  Wil- 
cox, on  perceiving  that  the  attack  had  grown  hopeless, 
failed  to  advance,  leaving  Pickett's  men  to  continue 
the  charge  alone.  The  other  supports,  Hood's  and 
McLaw's  Divisions,  which  had  been  expected  to  ad- 
vance in  support  of  the  charging  column,  did  not 
move,  and  were  too  remote  to  offer  any  assistance. 
The  consequence  was  that  Pickett  was  left  entirely 
unsupported. 


"Yet  the  gallant  Virginians  marched  steadily  for- 
ward through  the  storm  of  shot  and  shell  that  burst 
upon  their  devoted  ranks  with  a  gallantry  that  has 
never  been  surpassed.  As  they  approached  the  ridge 
their  lines  were  torn  by  incessant  volleys  of  musketry 
as  by  a  deadly  hail.  Yet,  with  unfaltering  courage, 
the  brave  fellows  broke  into  the  double-quick,  and 
with  an  irresistible  charge  burst  into  the  Federal 
lines  and  drove  everything  before  them  toward  the 
crest  of  Cemetery  Hill,  leaping  the  breastworks  and 
planting  their  standards  on  the  captured  guns  with 
shouts  of  victory." 

Whilst  nearly  all  of  the  Federal  reports  which  refer  to  this 
charge  do  so  in  almost  as  enthusiastic  terms  as  the  Confed- 
erate, yet  only  two  or  three  of  them  designate  by  name  the 
troops  who  were  in  advance  and  who  actually  entered  their 
works.  These  few,  however,  leave  no  doubt  on  this  point. 
Gen.  Flancock  says: 

"When  the  enemy's  line  had  nearly  reached  the 
stone  wall,  led  by  Gen.  Armistead"  [italics  ours],  etc. 

Gen.  Webb,  who  commanded  the  brigade  immediately  in 
front  of  Pickett,  says : 

"The  enemy  advanced  steadily  to  the  fence,  driving 
out  a  portion  of  the  Seventy-First  Pennsylvania  Vol- 
unteers. Gen,  Armistead  passed  over  the  fence  with 
probably  over  a  hundred  of  liis  command  [italics  ours] 
and  with  several  battle  flags,"  etc. 

Gen.  Henry  J.  Hunt,  who  commanded  the  Federal  ar- 
tillery, says : 

"The  enemy  advanced  magnificently,  unshaken  by 
the  shot  and  shell  which  tore  through  his  ranks  from 
the  front  and  from  our  left.  .  .  .  When  our  can- 
ister fire  and  musketry  were  opened  upon  them  it  oc- 
casioned disorder,  but  still  they  advanced  gallantly 
until  they  reached  the  stone  wall,  behind  which  our 
troops  lay.  Here  ensued  a  desperate  conflict,  the 
enemy  succeeding  in  passing  the  wall  and  entering  our 
lines  [italics  ours],  causing  great  destruction  of  life, 
especially  among  the  batteries." 

The  other  reports  show  what  "enemy"  is  here  meant. 
It  will  thus  be  seen  that  every  one  of  the  official  reports, 
both  Federal  and  Confederate   (with  the  exception  of  that  of 


19 

Col.  Shepard,  of  Archer's  Brigade,  not  composed  of  Caro- 
linians), which  refer  to  the  troops  who  entered  the  enemy's 
works,  point  unmistakably  to  those  of  Pickett's  Virginians. 
This  is  the  positive  testimony  on  this  point,  and  the  negative 
is  almost  as  strong;  which  is  that  none  of  the  official  reports 
from  the  officers  commanding  the  North  Carolina  troops 
make  any  such  claim  for  their  troops — a  claim  that  would 
certainly  have  been  made  if  the  facts  had  warranted  it.  Not 
only  is  this  true,  but  Gen.  Lane,  in  his  letter  published  long 
after  the  war  in  the  "Southern  Historical  Society  papers," 
whilst  complaining  (and,  perhaps,  justly)  of  the  little  credit 
given  the  North  Carolina  troops  for  their  conduct  in  this 
charge,  makes  no  such  claim  for  them.  Indeed,  Capt.  S. 
A.  Ashe,  of  North  Carolina,  late  adjutant  general  of  Pender's 
Division,  who  was  in  the  charge,  in  his  address  published  in 
Volume  V.  of  "North  Carolina  Regiments,  '61-65,"  whilst 
claiming  at  the  close  that  North  Carolina  troops  "advanced 
the  farthest  and  remained  the  longest,"  says  at  page  152 : 

"Some  of  Pettigrew's  North  Carolinians  advanced 
to  the  wall  itself  [italics  ours],  doing  all  that  splendid 
valor  and  heroic  endurance  could  do  to  dislodge  the 
enemy,  but  their  heroism  was  in  vain." 

And  only  a  very  few  of  the  many  post-bellum  witnesses 
quoted  from  by  Capt.  Ashe  claim  any  more  than  the  official  re- 
ports show.  As  to  the  value  of  these  post-bellum  statements,  as 
compared  with  the  "official  reports"  prepared  at  the  time,  we 
cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  from  what  Gen.  Lane  said 
in  the  article  in  the  Southern  Historical  Society  papers  be- 
fore referred  to.  He  says,  speaking  of  his  own  report  of 
the  battle  of  Gettysburg : 

"I  am  sure  the  public  will  consider  this  official  paper, 
written  about  a  month  after  the  battle,  a  more  valua- 
ble historical  document  than  the  many  recent  articles 
written  from  memory,  which  is  at  all  times  treach- 
erous, and  as  every  Confederate  soldier  knows,  par- 
ticularly so  as  regards  the  incidents,  etc.,  of  our  heroic 
struggle  for  independence." 

He  then  goes  on  to  give  instances  of  the  unreliability  of 
these  writings  from  memory. 

We  have  heretofore  said  we  could  find  no  official  report 
of  this  battle  from  Gen.  Pickett.  The  following  letter  ex- 
plains why  this  report  was  not  published.  It  will  be  found 
in  Series  1,  Volume  XXVII.,  Part  III.,  page  1075,  "Reb.  Rec./' 
and  is  as  follows : 


"Gen.  George  E.  Pickett.  Commanding,  etc. 

''General:  You  and  your  men  have  crowned  your- 
selves with  glory ;  but  we  have  the  enemy  to  fight,  and 
must  carefully,  at  this  critical  moment,  guard  against 
dissensions  which  the  reflections  in  your  report  would 
create.  I  will,  therefore,  suggest  that  you  destroy 
both  copy  and  original,  substituting  one  confined  to 
casualties  merely.     I  hope  all  will  yet  be  well. 

"I  am,  with  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

"R.  E.  Lee,  General." 

We  make  no  comment  on  this  letter,  and  when  read  in  the 
light  of  the  official  reports,  it  would  seem  to  need  none. 

We  do  not  intend  to  be  misunderstood.  We  have  not  done  so 
and  do  not  intend  to  reflect  in  any  way  on  any  of  the  North 
Carolina  troops.  On  the  contrary,  we  think,  considering  the 
fact  that  they  were  engaged  and  sustained  heavy  losses  in  the 
first  day's  battle,  and  were  thus  deprived  of  many  of  their 
brigade,  regimental,  and  company  officers  they  behaved  with 
signal  gallantry.  But  our  contention  and  our  only  point  is: 
that  the  present  claim  set  up  by  North  Carolina  that  her 
troops  were  "farthest  to  the  front"  at  Gettysburg  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  record. 

We  have  recently  learned  that  our  friends  from  North 
Carolina  do  not  now  claim  that  their  men  entered  the 
enemy's  works,  as  some  of  Pickett's  did.  Yet  they  say  that 
inasmuch  as  at  the  point  where  Pickett's  men  struck  these 
works  they  were  farther  advanced  to  the  front  than  where 
Pettigrew's  men  struck  them,  and  as  "Capt.  Satterfield  and 
other  North  Carolinians  of  the  Fifty-Fifth  North  Carolina  fell 
within  nine  yards  of  that  wall.  This  settles  (it)  that  the 
men  from  this  State  (North  Carolina)  fairly  earned  the  title 
"Farthest  at  Gettysburg."  (Note  by  the  editor,  "North  Caro- 
lina Regiments,  '6i-'6$,"  Vol.  V.,  p.  101.) 

We  remark  in  the  first  place  that  the  Fifty-Fifth  North 
Carolina  was  in  Davis'  Brigade,  the  farthest  brigade  to  the 
left  (save  one)  in  the  "charging  column,"  and  being  without 
any  support,  as  explained  by  Gen.  Lane,  we  thought  it  was 
conceded  that  this  brigade  and  Brockenbrough's  zvere  the 
-first  troops  to  give  way. 

But  surely  our  friends  are  not  basing  their  claim  on  any 
such  narrow  and  technical  ground  as  is  here  indicated,  and 
as  surely  this  is  not  the  meaning  they  intended  to  convey  by 
this  claim.  We  might  as  well  claim  that  the  picket  on  the 
flank  of  Meade's  army  or  captured  within  his  lines  was  "farthest 
to  the  front."  Every  soldier  knows  that  the  "front"  of  an 
army  is  wherever  its  line  of  battle  is   (whether  that  line  is 


zigzag  or  straight),  and  the  opposing  troops  which  penetrate 
that  line  are  farther  to  the  front  than  those  which  do  not. 

We  have  shown,  we  think,  conclusively  that  the  Virginians 
under  Pickett  did  penetrate  the  enemy's  line  on  the  3d  of 
July,  '63,  in  the  famous  charge  at  Gettysburg,  and  that  the 
North  Carolinians,  under  Pettigrew  and  Trimble,  did  not. 

Another  ground  on  which,  we  understand,  North  Carolina 
bases  this  claim  is,  that  her  losses  in  this  battle  were  greater 
than  those  of  Pickett.  All  the  statistics  of  losses  we  have 
seen  of  the  battle  of  Gettysburg  include  those  in  the  dif- 
ferent commands  in  all  three  days  combined.  Since,  there- 
fore, Pettigrew's  and  Trimble's  men  were  engaged  in  the 
battles  of  the  first  day  as  well  as  those  of  the  third,  and  as 
Pickett's  were  only  engaged  on  the  third  day,  of  course  the 
losses  of  the  first  two  divisions  in  the  two  days'  battles 
were  greater  than  those  of  the  last  named  in  the  one  day's 
battle. 

If  our  friends  from  North  Carolina  would  adopt  the  lan- 
guage of  her  gallant  son,  Capt.  Ashe,  from  whom  we  have 
already  quoted,  and  say  of  Gettysburg, 

"It  was,  indeed,  a  field  of  honor  as  well  as  a  field  of 
blood,  and  the  sister  States  of  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina  have  equal  cause  to  weave  chaplets  of  laurel 
and  cypress  there," 


1/ 


no  one  in  Virginia  would  have  just  cause  of  complaint 
and  certainly  none  would  ever  have  come  from  this  committee 
on  this  point.  But  when  her  claim  is  set  forth  in  the  in- 
vidious (and,  we  think,  unjust)  form  it  is,  we  think  it  not  only 
our  right  but  our  duty  to  appeal  to  the  record,  and  to  set 
Virginia  right  from  that  record,  and  this  is  all  we  have  tried 
to  do. 

AS   TO   CHICKAMAUGA. 

As  to  Chickamauga  :  We  have  already  protracted  this  re- 
port too  far  to  warrant  us  in  investigating  the  ground  on 
which  this  claim  is  based  by  North  Carolina.  Virginia  was  at 
Chickamauga,  too,  along  with  North  Carolina.  We  have  al- 
ways understood  that  these  Virginia  troops  did  their  duty  on 
this  field  as  well  as  those  from  any  other  State.  This  is  all 
we  claim,  and  all  that  was  claimed  for  North  Carolina  until 
very  recently.  We  can  only  remark  as  to  this  belated  claim 
that  we  have  read  the  full  and  detailed  report  of  this  great 
battle,  written  by  the  commanding  general,  a  native  of  North 
Carolina,  and  in  it  he  nowhere  refers  to  any  specially  meri- 
torious services  rendered  by  the  few  North  Carolina  troops 
there. 


AS    TO   APPOMATTOX. 

As  to  Appomattox  :  The  writer  had  been  permanently  dis- 
abled by  wounds  before  Appomattox,  and,  therefore,  can- 
not speak  personally  of  what  occurred  there,  and  there  are 
no  official  reports  to  appeal  to.  From  what  we  have  heard  of 
the  surroundings  there — the  scattered  condition  of  the  differ- 
ent commands,  the  desultory  firing,  and  the  confusion  inci- 
dent to  that  event — we  should  think  it  difficult,  if  not  im- 
possible, to  prove  with  any  degree  of  certainty  what  troops 
were  really  entitled  to  the  honor  claimed  there  by  North 
Carolina. 

V/e  do  not  know,  however,  that  m  this  honor  is  claimed  by 
troops  from  several  of  the  Southern  States ;  and  we  have 
heard  it  asserted  with  great  plausibility  that  the  last  fighting 
was  done  by  troops  from  Virginia.  We  cannot  prolong  this 
report  to  discuss  the  merits  of  these  several  claims,  a  dis- 
cusssion  which  would,  in  our  opinion,  be  both  fruitless  and 
entirely  unsatisfactory. 

ENOUGH    GLORY    TOR    ALL    TO    HAVE    A    SHARE. 

In  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia  nearly  every  Southern 
State  was  represented.  The  Confederate  Secretary  of  War 
says  of  that  army  in  his  report  of  November  3,  1864,  that  it 
was  one  "in  which  every  virtue  of  an  army  and  the  genius  of 
consummate  generalship  had  been  displayed."  And  this 
again,  we  believe,  is  the  world's  verdict.  Is  not  this  glory 
enough  to  give  us  all  a  share?  Let  us  then  not  be  envious 
and  jealous  of  each  other  where  all  did  their  part  so  well. 

Virginia's  claims. 

Virginia  makes  no  boast  of  the  part  borne  by  her  in  that, 
the  greatest  crisis  of  her  history.  She  only  claims  that  she  did 
her  duty  to  the  best  of  her  ability.  She  has,  therefore,  no  apol- 
ogies to  make  either  for  what  she  did  or  may  have  failed  to  do. 
It  is  true  that  she  was  somewhat  reluctant  to  join  the  Con- 
federacy, not  because  she  had  any  doubt  of  the  right  of 
secession  or  of  the  justice  of  the  Confederate  cause,  but  only 
because  of  her  devotion  to  the  union  of  our  fathers  which 
she  had  done  so  much  to  form  and  to  maintain  from  its 
foundation.  But  when  she  did  cast  her  lot  with  her  South- 
ern sisters,  she  bore  her  part  with  a  courage  and  devotion 
never  surpassed;  and  the  record  shows  this  in  no  uncertain 
way.  In  the  address  issued  and  signed  by  every  member  of 
the  Confederate  Congress  in  February,  1864,  not  written  by 
a  Virginian,  she  is  thus  referred  to : 


23 

"In  Virginia  the  model  of  all  that  illustrates  human 
heroism  and  self-denying  patriotism,  although  the 
tempest  of  desolation  has  swept  over  her  fair  domain, 
no  sign  of  repentance  for  her  separation  from  the 
North  can  be  found.  Her  old  homesteads  dismantled; 
her  ancestral  relics  destroyed ;  her  people  impover- 
ished; her  territory  made  the  battle  ground  for  the 
rude  shocks  of  contending  hosts,  and  then  divided 
with  hireling  parasites,  mockingly  claiming  jurisdic- 
tion and  authority,  the  Old  Dominion  still  stands  with 
proud  crest  and  defiant  mien  ready  to  trample  beneath 
her  heel  every  usurper  and  tyrant,  and  to  illustrate 
afresh  her  Sic  Semper  Tyrannis,  the  proudest  motto 
that  ever  blazed  on  a  nation's  shield  or  a  warrior's 
arms." 

On  such  testimony  as  this  Virginia  can  safely  rest  her 
title  to  share  equally  with  her  Southern  sisters  in  the  "wealth 
of  glory"  produced  by  the  war,  and  this  equality  is  all  she 
asks  or  would  have.  She  disdains  to  pluck  one  laurel  from 
a  sister's  brow. 

SCH00LB00KS. 

We  have  but  little  to  add,  since  our  last  report,  about  the 
books  used  in  our  schools,  as  there  has  been  no  change  in 
these  so  far  as  we  know.  We  have  received  from  the  pub- 
lishers, the  American  Book  Company,  a  copy  of  the 
"School  History  of  the  United  States,"  by  Philip  A.  Bruce, 
Esq.  This  work  is  well-written,  accurate  in  its  statements, 
as  far  as  we  are  capable  of  judging,  well  gotten  up  by  the 
publishers,  and  is  a  very  good  school  history.  Mr.  Bruce  is 
a  Virginian,  and  his  book  is  therefore  written  from  a  South- 
ern point  of  view.  But  we  think  he  fails  to  state  the  South's 
position,  in  reference  to  the  late  war,  as  strongly  as  it  can  or 
should  be  stated  to  our  children — e.  g.,  at  Section  418,  he 
says, 

"The  Southern  people  maintained  that  the  Constitu- 
tion was  simply  a  compact  or  agreement  between  sov- 
ereign and  independent  States," 

etc.,  without  saying  whether  they  were  right  or  wrong  in  so 
maintaining.  Again,  at  Section  419,  he  says,  "The  South 
thought,"  etc.  We  think  we  know  what  the  opinions  of  the 
author  are  on  these  important  questions,  and  that  our  children 
should  have  the  benefit  of  these  opinions,  wherever  they  are 
based  on  such  well-ascertained  facts  as  are  here  referred  to. 


24 

"stepping-stones  to  literature." 

The  volumes  with  this  title  have  been  brought  to  our  at- 
tention by  Capt.  Carter  R.  Bishop,  of  Petersburg,  a  member 
of  the  committee;  and  at  our  request  he  has  prepared  the  fol- 
lowing, it  would  seem,  well-merited  criticism,  which  we  re- 
spectfully commend  to  the  serious  consideration  <of  the 
Board  of  Education  of  the  State. 

Capt.  Bishop's  paper  is  as  follows: 

"This  committee  has  hitherto  confined  its  attention 
entirely  to  matters  of  history  proper ;  but  the  lamented 
Dr.  Hunter  McGuire,  in  outlining  our  work,  included 
among  the  subjects  of  our  criticism  such  text-books  of 
our  schools  as  failed  to  do  justice  to  the  South. 

"We  have  recently  examined,  critically,  the  series  of 
readers  in  most  common  use,  and  find  them  far  from 
what  they  should  be.  An  intelligent  child  soon  learns 
that  authors  may  dogmatize  in  the  statement  of  facts 
about  which  there  may  be  a  difference  of  opinion. 
This  puts  him  on  his  guard,  and  he  accepts  the  teach- 
ings of  his  history  as  truths  subject  to  such  future  cor- 
rection as  may  be  justified  by  a  wider  knowledge  of 
the  matter. 

"But  the  most  ineradicable  opinions  are  those 
formed  by  inference,  without  assertion  or  contradiction, 
during  the  formative  period  of  a  child's  mind.  The 
error  thus  implanted  is  never  suspected  till  it  is  un- 
alterably fixed.  There  are  poisons  whose  only  mani- 
festation is  the  inexplicable  death  of  the  victim.  An 
antidote  would  have  saved  him,  but  its  need  was  not 
indicated  till  death  made  it  useless. 

"Did  the  South,  during  the  last  century  and  a  half, 
have  no  orators,  poets,  nor  writers  whose  works  might 
be  of  service  in  the  literary  development  of  the  child? 
Were  the  Southerners  so  enervated  by  the  luxury  of 
slavery  as  to  produce  nothing  worthy  of  a  place  among 
the  selections  from  the  best  writers  and  speakers  of 
the  language?  The  average  child  using  the  'Step- 
ping-Stones  to  Literature'  would  be  forced  so  to  con- 
clude. For,  mark  you,  this  series  of  readers  consists 
of  seven  grades;  the  majority  of  children  in  our 
schools  never  reach  the  last  or  the  seventh,  and  in 
this  one  only  is  there  a  word  from  a  Southern  lip  or 
pen.  The  selections  were  made,  or  approved,  by  a  Bos- 
ton lady,  naturally,  from  the  literature  with  which  she 
was  most  familiar.  The  New  England  school  of  au- 
thors is  fully  represented,  and  biographical  notes  make 


25 

sure  that  the  child  shall  know  the  section  to  which 
they  belong  and  the  loving  reverence  in  which  they 
are  held.  But  the  information  of  this  kind  about  the 
Southern  authors  is  marked  in  its  meagerness.  Its 
extent  is  as  follows:  Patrick  Henry  'lived  in  Virginia 
during  the  Revolutionary  War;'  Mrs.  Preston  'was 
born  in  Philadelphia  and  lived  in  Lexington,  Va. ;' 
'Gen.  Gordon  was  a  Confederate  officer ;'  and  'Sidney 
Lanier  was  a  Southern  poet.'  For  the  man  who  does 
not  want  his  child  to  know  more  than  this  of  the 
home  and  nativity  of  Southern  authors,  these  books 
are  good  enough.  But  if  there  is  such  a  man  in  our 
land,  his  only  plea  for  such  a  wish  would  have  to  be 
his  own  unbounded  ignorance. 

"The  South  has  produced  orators  whose  impetuous 
eloquence  has  made  men  rush  with  a  glad  cheer  into 
the  very  jaws  of  death;  statesmen  whose  wise  counsel 
has  restrained  the  fierce  heat  of  a  hot-blooded  people; 
preachers  whose  words  have  convinced  the  sinner, 
cheered  the  saint,  and  comforted  the  bereaved;  writers 
whose  sentiments  have  placed  the  wreath  of  undying 
glory  on  the  tomb  of  heroes,  and  inspired  a  people  of 
desolated  homes  to  rehabilitate  their  land  made  sacred 
by  the  graves  of  such  heroes;  poets  whose  graceful 
fancy  has  gilded  the  mountain  tops  with  the  lights 
of  other  days  and  caused  those  in  the  gloom  of  despair 
to  look  up  and  resolve  to  lead  lives  worthy  of  such 
hallowed  associations. 

"Must  the  children  of  the  South  grow  up  in  igno- 
rance of  these  authors?  Such  is  the  unconscious  in- 
tent of  our  Board  of  Public  Education,  as  evinced  by 
their  adoption  of  these  readers  for  our  schools. 

"The  seventy-eighth  Psalm  contains  a  long  catalogue 
of  God's  dealings  with  his  chosen  people.  It  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  sung  in  the  temple  service.  Was  it  that 
the  elders  might  warm  their  hearts  afresh  and  restrain 
their  evil  inclinations  as  the}'  recited  again  and  again 
God's  mercies  and  his  wrath?  Possibly  this  was  one 
result  of  its  use,  but  that  it  was  not  its  main  object 
we  learn  from  the  introduction  to  this  psalm  of  in- 
struction where  we  read:  'For  he  established  a  tes- 
timony in  Jacob  and  appointed  a  law  in  Israel,  which 
he  commanded  our  fathers  that  they  should  make 
them  known  to  their  children ;  that  the  generation  to 
come  might  know  them,  even  the  children  which 
should  be  born ;  who  should  arise  and  declare  them 
to   their    children.'     There   you   have    it.     The    divine 


26 


plan  was  to  lodge  that  which  we  wish  to  remain  in 
the  mind  of  the  cliild.  Can  we  improve  upon  His 
plan? 

"If  we  wish  the  authors  so  dear  to  us,  of  whom  we 
are  so  justly  proud,  to  be  loved  in  the  future,  or  even 
known  outside  of  a  mere  handful  of  dry  and  bloodless 
bookworms,  we  must  to-day  make  them  known  to  our 
children. 

"All  the  criticisms  so  far  made  on  the  'Stepping- 
Stones  to  Literature'  are  negative.  We  have  pointed 
out  things  that  are  wanting.  But  there  is  one  selec- 
tion to  which  we  shall  call  special  attention.  It  is 
'The  Battle  Hymn  of  the  Republic,'  by  Julia  Ward 
Howe,  in  the  Sixth  Reader,  which  represents  the  in- 
vading Northern  army  as  the  coming  of  the  Lord  in 
vengeance.  Comment  on  such  blasphemy  is  unneces- 
sary. Surely  no  Southerner  could  have  taken  the 
trouble  to  advise  himself  of  the  existence  of  such  an 
outrage  on  our  children." 

Respectfully  submitted. 

George  L.  Christian,  Chairman. 


New  History  Committee. — John  W.  Daniel,  Chairman; 
George  L.  Christian,  R.  T.  Barton,  Carter  R.  Bishop,  R.  A. 
Brock,  Rev.  B.  D.  Tucker,  James  Mann,  R.  S. '  B.  Smith, 
T.  H.  Edwards,  W.  H.  Hurkamp,  John  W.  Fulton,  Micajah 
Woods,  John  W.  Johnston,  Thomas  D.  Ranson. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  N.C.  AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


00032721252 


This  book  may  be  kept  out  one  month  unless  a  recall 
notice  is  sent  to  you.  It  must  be  brought  to  the  North 
Carolina  Collection  (in  Wilson  Library)  for  renewal. 


Kwrx 


Form  No.  A-369 


